Attachment to Independent Case Review Report For CDRU # 6358 Case file # 95-252377. oa

Material Examiner Malone (RQ)

REMST Ses

Be ge Na Ae NN [Tre

LAN

‘CRM -.7529 —

INDEPENDENT CASE REVIEW REPORT

Independent Review conducted by: Steve Robertson

Area(s) of Expertise: Hair and Fiber Review commenced at: 8:00 AM (Time), 09/17/1999 (Date). File #: 95-252377

Laboratory #(s): 20608093 21025077

Examiner(s) & Symbols

Reviewed Not Reviewed Reviewed Not Reviewed xa . ; a d oO oo o Materials Reviewed Trial testimony transcript(s) of: Michael Malone ‘Testimony Date(s): 10-26-83 Pages: 11-73 Laboratory Report(s): Laboratory Number: 20608093 Date: Sept 17, 1982

Laboratory Number: 21025077 ‘Date: = Dec 14, 1982

Laboratory Number: Date:

Examiner Bench Notes of: RQ and unknown technician Laboratory Number: 20608093 21025077

Page 1 of 4

Initials: Suk 7 CRM - 7530

Was any other material reviewed? XO Yes ‘No

If yes, please identify and/or describe the material: | Submitting agency letter (not dated), court reported log of

case 1JUS83-301CR dated 10-25-83. On 3-12-2001, the transcript of Malone’s testimony was provided for

review.

Results of Review

File #: 95-252377 Item or Specimen # Reviewed: Q!-Q6, Q99-Q27,-Q31-Q42, K1,

Review of Laboratory Report(s) and Bench Notes: Be

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

Did the examiner perform the appropriate tests in a scientifically acceptable manner, based on the methods, protocols, and analytic techniques available at the time of the original examination(s)? OYes ONo XO Unable to Determine

Are the examination results set forth in the laboratory report(s) supported and adequately documented in the bench notes? GQYes XONo~ JO Unable to Determine

Review of Testimony:

Note: Numbered comments are required below or on additional pages for any “No” or “Unable to Determine” Responses

a Transcript not available. (Not available on 9-17-99; available and reviewed on 3-12-2001)

3) Testimony consistent with the laboratory report(s)? OYes XQONo O Unable to Determine

4) Testimony consistent with the bench notes? XOQYes GNo- OG Unable to Determine

- 5) Testimony within bounds of examiner's expertise? O Yes XONo © Unable to Determine

Page 2 of 4

Initials: Mt L

Comments (Set forth by above question #, if applicable. Use “Additional Comments” Sheet, if needed) File #:. 95-252377 #1: There is insufficient documentation to determine if the hair comparison was performed in a scientifically

acceptable manner. ,

#2: The results are not adequately documented in the notes. The notes are not dated, are in pencil and are not

initialed by the technician(s). Some hair were deemed unsuitable for comparison with no reason or explanation

Review completed at: 5:00PM (Time), 03/15/2001 (Date)

Total time spent conducting review (to nearest 1/4 hour):. $:00 hours

I hereby certify that J conducted this review in an independent, unbiased manner and that the results of my review are fully documented on this report consisting of a total of 4. pages.

wie ee March 15, 2001

(Signature) (Date)

‘

ise EM

Page of 4...

Additional Comments (Set forth by question #, if applicable)

File #: 95-252377

#2 (continued):

. given. The examiner did not initial some of his notes. Some abbreviations are used that are difficult to interpret. ee ee

The presence of unidentified head and pubic hair was not reported (see items Q5, Q10, Q22).

i

The court reporter’s log was very difficult to read. The transcript of Malone should be obtained for review.

The transcript was provided for review on March 12, 2001. See comments below. TO #3: Malone testifies that hair that does not match either of the victims or either of the suspects was recovered from the evidence. This fact is in the bench notes, but is not stated in the laboratory report. acne TUS #5: Malone testified that, based on literature and his own personal experience, if he matched a hair to a person, the chance of finding another individual with the same hair is about one in five thousand. The 1] in 5000 chance. that this evidence hair came from some other person besides the suspect is not supported in the literature. Malone’s claim of examining hair from over 10,000 individuals and only being unable to tell the hair apart two times leads him to the 1 in 5000 chance the hair could be from another person besides the suspect. This is not the same as comparing the hair from all those 10,000 people to each other to determine how many would match nn En

another.

hich TION OnITEITS nr nn nn Ett Enna SEEE REARS

ere AR

" This report is a compilation of the 9/17/99 report and the 3/12/01 report.

Page

Initials: